You know, I've been following this thread for a while, and I'm thinking the horse is pretty well dead. A recap might be useful at this point. First a guy with a year of experience and limited gear overstates his case and provides incomplete info. Yep, he's got to have "professional quality" with an operational budget of $1500 (maybe $6500). Of course, he is shot down in flames by people who are pros, people who want to be pros, and people who really don't want to be pros, because they have a good idea what's involved.
Then, the original poster gets his back up a little, because he doesn't realize how far he's overstated his case, or that his information was incomplete, and feels he's being patronized and that the resposes are condescending. Meanwhile, several posters put up valid gear lists compatible with the stated budget and point out that good sound quality can be achieved at the project studio level, with limitations on number of tracks and processing capability.
The debate then degenerates into a semantic dispute over what "professional level" recording is, and whether such a definition should be based on versatility and ethical considerations, or on a market-based supply and demand model.
Credible arguments are made that high quality tracks can be generated on a limited budget, and that such efforts will most likely fail in competition at the commercial level.
Before I unsubscribe from this thread, which I believe no longer addresses Tyler's needs, I will state my thoughts on the major issues. Tyler, when you throw around words like "professional", you raise the hackles of "professionals", who have spent $50,000 or much more to achieve the finest results they can, and offer the best services they can to their clients. They may legitimately believe that at the stated price point of $25/hr, the limited services you can provide with your small budget and experience can not compete with their service or others like them. They may be concerned that you are setting yourself up for failure, or that the services you would offer would be a bad buy, or both, and their concerns are warranted on both counts.
I believe that some very good tracks indeed can be achieved at your price point, but you have to be aware of the limitations imposed both by lack of gear and expertise. You need to build your project studio as a learning tool, so that when you have the budget to go pro (you don't), you may have the expertise to do it well, and maybe, just maybe, succeed. Or, as I have, you build the studio to record a very specific set of tracks with very specific parameters, and accept that you can do better by doing less. My budget is 5 times your best case scenario, and I wouldn't even dream of trying to call it a commercial studio. Nonetheless, most of my studio is being paid for by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, to record an ancient Hellenic text, just one spoken voice, and I think I can manage "professional quality" results for 1 spoken track. Does that make it a "professional" studio- No.
Then I will record my first album, which will be OK, because I have great staff, professional engineering expertise (not me), adequate gear, and all remixing, processing, mastering, normalization, sequencing, and production will be outsourced. In effect, what you have said is- "I want to race in the Indianapolis 500. I've got a budget of $6500, and I'm not really a beginner, because I've been driving for a year." The people who are trying to help you are pointing out that you can buy a pretty good used stock car for $6500, and that going to a race driving school or doing a little autocross might help you develop the right skills. So go ahead and build a pro studio for $6500, but I don't think I'll be calling you for the remixing contract. Or build a modest project studio and spend a few years becoming an engineer. If what you want is gear reviews, you'll find plenty of that on the other forums of this board. Good luck, Tyler. When you ask a question that has an answer, we'll be there for you.-Richie